You and I have very different definitions of "rarely", apparently.
It is rare, by most definitions of "rare" (at least in the US, where I'm implicitly limiting this discussion, in general). What's yours?
If your definition of "rarely" is "more than never", a) you're setting an unreasonable standard, and b) letting the lack of perfection be an easy way to discredit anyone who disagrees with you, which is intellectually lazy.
I certainly agree that abuse happens! Unfortunately, that's just a fact of life. The best we can do is minimize abuse, and we should be making every effort to do so.
But this does not mean reactionary banning of every new technology, regardless of the benefits it may bring. That's just reactionary conservatism, which I think (based on the rest your comment), you vehemently disagree with!
> Flock is used specifically to create parallel construction, where they observe cars moving "in a pattern" that might indicate "smuggling immigrants" such as driving from a border county, or working with pro-immigrant groups (a 100% legal activity), and local/regional police are alerted to find a pretext to stop the car, and often results in charges for someone who would otherwise never have been noticed.
[Citation needed]. This is certainly plausible, but is currently presented without evidence, and can likewise be dismissed without evidence.
> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Cool truism. Except we're not talking about "absolute power" by any stretch of the definition.
> This type of systems are only a step away from absolute power
Okay this is just bullshit and hyperbole.
The rest of your comment is equally disingenuous and wildly emotional. I refuse to engage with this. Either calm down and have a real conversation, or go away. Your subsequent ad-hominems and strawmen are entirely unwarranted and uncalled-for.
You are awfully quick to dismiss what you do not know and are too lazy to even do a quick search. I literally read about these parallel construction scenarios here on HN and they are sufficiently common and severe to generate multiple legal actions and be repeatedly reported in mainstream press, e.g., [0],[1],[2],[3], and Flock even stopped cooperating due to these issues[4]. so, there's five citations, doing your homework for you.
>>we're not talking about "absolute power"; bullshit and hyperbole.
A corporate-government alliance that can track every movement of you and every other resident and arrest you on any pretext (e.g., "these two photos show you averaging 5mph over the speed limit, oh, you refuse a car search? GET OUT OF THE CAR...") is functionally indistinguishable from absolute power.
There is a reason such a panopticon is a core feature of many dystopian novels or movies - if they always know what you do, you have zero freedom to do anything they do not want you to do.
With that kind of power, there are endless examples of opportunities for abuse, and the burden of proof is on those trying to defend implementing such a system.
Repeatedly yelling "strawman!" or "citation needed" as if they were a magical argument winning incantations dismissing statements based on "tone" are not arguments. You really read like a high-school poster who got a hold of one of his older sister's college philosophy books over the holidays and now fancies himself a master logician. Of course it feels powerful to take an absolutist stand, and you can argue it forever, but such sophistry doesn't convince anyone and is extremely boring and pointless.
You had one good point upstream that one needs to draw a line somewhere between a single CATV camera and a panopticon. Yes, it is difficult to draw that line. Discussing THAT makes sense.
CBP is already creating surveillance networks to identify "suspicious" routes, and in real-time identify people coincidentally driving that direction, and having local police cook up a reason to stop them.
You and I have very different definitions of "rarely", apparently.
It is rare, by most definitions of "rare" (at least in the US, where I'm implicitly limiting this discussion, in general). What's yours?
If your definition of "rarely" is "more than never", a) you're setting an unreasonable standard, and b) letting the lack of perfection be an easy way to discredit anyone who disagrees with you, which is intellectually lazy.
I certainly agree that abuse happens! Unfortunately, that's just a fact of life. The best we can do is minimize abuse, and we should be making every effort to do so.
But this does not mean reactionary banning of every new technology, regardless of the benefits it may bring. That's just reactionary conservatism, which I think (based on the rest your comment), you vehemently disagree with!
> Flock is used specifically to create parallel construction, where they observe cars moving "in a pattern" that might indicate "smuggling immigrants" such as driving from a border county, or working with pro-immigrant groups (a 100% legal activity), and local/regional police are alerted to find a pretext to stop the car, and often results in charges for someone who would otherwise never have been noticed.
[Citation needed]. This is certainly plausible, but is currently presented without evidence, and can likewise be dismissed without evidence.
> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Cool truism. Except we're not talking about "absolute power" by any stretch of the definition.
> This type of systems are only a step away from absolute power
Okay this is just bullshit and hyperbole.
The rest of your comment is equally disingenuous and wildly emotional. I refuse to engage with this. Either calm down and have a real conversation, or go away. Your subsequent ad-hominems and strawmen are entirely unwarranted and uncalled-for.